The question is - 'When to quit' ?

[Etats360]

[ QUOTE ]
I quit when I feel like I am no longer playing my best game. Enuff' said.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still be +EV even when you're not playing at 100% if the games are good enough

[SABR42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I quit when I feel like I am no longer playing my best game. Enuff' said.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still be +EV even when you're not playing at 100% if the games are good enough

[/ QUOTE ]
True. I'm somewhat of a perfectionist though, so it wouldn't work well for me.

[Etats360]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but when you are up, don't you talk yourself to quit on some point ? cause if you are up like 3-5 buy-ins, and have lost 1-2 buy-ins, it can be treated like you down 1-2 buy-ins on a new session..i think that the abillity of quiting while you are up is not less important then you are down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quitting while up isn't smart poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. If you are up at a table at any time, in theory, you are more likely to be +EV than -EV at the table. If you are down at a table, you are more likely to be -EV at the table than +EV. Thus, if you tell yourself "I am going to quit when I'm up X buyins, and I'm going to play as long as it takes to get to X buyins," you will in theory spend much more time/hands at bad tables than at good tables.

You should stop when it's no longer profitable to continue playing, keeping in mind any other non-poker things you have to do (School, work, etc.). There is no rule of thumb for everyone to stop playing, as everyone plays different over X aount of hours. You shuold find a comfort zone for youself in how long to play. Some factors to consider when deciding how long to play:

a)How prone you are to tilting
b)How many tables you are playing
c)How tired you are BEFORE you start playing
d)How long it takes for you to go from your A game to your B game, from your B game to your C game, etc.
E)How good the tables are relative to your skill. You have have to be able to judge if you are +EV in a game if you are playing your A game, but not if you are playing your B game
F)Variance. How small of an edge are you willing to take?

[VitoT]

you right about that you more likely to rise on a table you are up on, then go down, and it works the opposite direction, when you down at a table. i'm not really sure why it is happening, cause after all, if you are playing the same level of players on couple different tables, the mathematics and the variance should be the same.
I'll like to hear your opnions of why it is happening...

also about the reply said that it is not smart poker to quit while you are up, so if you lost 2 buy-ins out of the 4 you were up, so you going all the way to get even ? and then what ?

And about the abillity to gen into really big stacks, as 5+ buy-ins.. i'm not sure why i almost never get to there, i'm multi-tabling, and may sit on 4 different tables with 2-3 buy-ins, but i almost never sit on one table with 5+ buy-ins. it's not a very big problem for me, cause i can end up a whole straight week winning 3-5 buy-ins a day, but it is question i ask myself a lot : "why my rush don't getting long on one table?"
Does some of you guys facing the same thing ? if yes, do you think about it ? how you taking this ?

thanks for all the responses.

[Cardiac]

To be a winning player you have to quit at some point when you are winning. Quit when you are losing and not when you are winning does not make sense to me.

You quit whenever you thing about quiting for what ever reason. If you are not 100% sure that you need to be in this game at this time then you are losing an edge. Although it still may be +ev to stay. You don't know for sure until after you lose and say I should of left.

I find more people say if I would of only left at "X" time I would not of lost for the day. Than the ones that say if I would of kept playing I would of been up more.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]

You quit whenever you thing about quiting for what ever reason. If you are not 100% sure that you need to be in this game at this time then you are losing an edge. Although it still may be +ev to stay. You don't know for sure until after you lose and say I should of left.

I find more people say if I would of only left at "X" time I would not of lost for the day. Than the ones that say if I would of kept playing I would of been up more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah and those players are recreational players, gamblers. And obviously nobody can say they would have won more if they kept playing, is that some kind of joke or are you really that dense? Besides, those big winners (CTS is a perfect example) don't quit because they're up a few buyins, and yes sometimes they lose those buyins back and the some, but often times they keep winning and making progress.

[ QUOTE ]
To be a winning player you have to quit at some point when you are winning. Quit when you are losing and not when you are winning does not make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a fallacious argument, obviously anybody is going to have to quit at some point regardless if they are winning or losing. Secondly, people naturally play better when winning than losing. When you're down you lose confidence in your reads and your play degrades. When you're winning, it's the opposite. So it should be really obvious why it makes sense to cut sessions short when losing (not true for everybody) and to keep playing when winning (true for anybody).

Also, if people quit every time they didn't feel 100% like playing you'd have a whole lot of people who don't put any hands in.

[Cashane]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, people naturally play better when winning than losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually read recently some interesting article talking about the "winning tilt" (can't find it anymore, thought it was on cardrunners but I don't find it), ie how your play can degrade slightly once you have comfortable winnings : going more easily for some "cheap" long shots, agressing in spots where a check-fold would be wiser just because "everything works so well", starting to play loser and/or to respect less position, making a river call here and there "for cheap" where you should have folded, etc..

Of course all these behavior are helped by the fact that being a big stack at the table often gives an additional edge, especially if it's all wins as far as the other players know, but they still affect a lot of people and are much more dangerous because you don't "feel" like you do anything wrong (other than the fact that you start not winning anymore or giving back some of your wins, even though the table is very soft.. Maybe it's a problem the OP has?).
At least with the standard "downswing tilt", at some point you have to realize you're on tilt.

[Shizzle12345]

well i play better when winning. Sometimes i catch myself making a bad call 'cos im winning' . But when im up alot, I usually get less tilted if i lose a buyin.

So if you think that everyone has to endure a certain amount of beats (Fgators more then others obv), then it is +ev to get them when your up big time, and it doesnt affect your play.

I guess if i gets set over set, and im up 7 bi, i just shrug it off and think, who cares now im still up 6. But if im down 2, and lose another one, I usually think GODMAN GIMME FKING BReAKJALKDJSKLDFJKLDSJF

[scallop]

<<< gone from +3 buy-ins to even whilst reading this.


rule x: dont read and play ?

[redCashion]

If you'd won 3 buyins while reading this, what would your conclusion be?